TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the books of accounts of the firm, that it was noticed that the purchase turnover of gold bullion referred above was not included in the return filed by the partnership firm, I am of the view that, inasmuch as the realisation by the petitioner firm, of the omission, was only after the issuance of Ext.P1 notice to them, it is a case where the petitioner could not have been permitted to revise the return so as to cure the defects that were noticed by the assessing authority. The petitioner, therefore, had to suffer the consequences of any omission in the only valid return that was filed before the assessing authority. When so viewed, I do not find any illegality in the estimation that is done by the assessing authority while finding against the petitioner in Ext.P6 order that is impugned in W.P.(C).No.33522 of 2016 - In Ext.P6(a) order, the penalty that is imposed on the petitioner is double the tax levied. I modify Ext.P6(a) order by reducing the penalty imposed from ₹ 23,61,076/- to an amount of ₹ 1,00,000/-. Petition allowed - decided partly in favor of petitioner. - WP (C). No. 24958 of 2015 (T), W. P. (C). No. 33522 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 1-6-2017 - A. K. J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to complete the assessment for the year 2013-2014 on the proprietorship concern, by including the value of purchased gold bullion as suppressed purchase turnover, and making an estimation with regard to the sales effected for the year on the basis of the alleged purchase suppression detected. By a separate notice (Ext.P3(a)), a penalty was also proposed on the petitioner, for the reasons stated in the notice issued in connection with the assessee. Although the petitioner submitted a common reply, through Exts.P5 and P5(a) orders, the assessment and penalty proceedings were completed against the petitioner by bringing to tax an exorbitant turnover attributable to the alleged suppressed purchase turnover of gold bullion, and also by imposing a penalty commensurate with the escaped turnover that was assessed. In W.P.(C).Nos.24958 of 2015, the petitioner impugns Exts.P5 assessment order and Ext.P5(a) penalty order, inter alia, on the ground that, there was no justification for the respondents to compete the assessment against the petitioner under circumstances where the petitioner had suo motu, and before any proceedings were initiated against him by the Assessing Officer, declared the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 5. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that, as regards the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.24958 of 2015, although it is a fact that he did not declare the purchases evidenced by Exts.P1 and P1(a) invoices in the return submitted for the month of December 2013, the Department also had not taken any steps for investigating the matter or completing the assessment by May 2014 when, by Ext.P2 application dated 16.05.2014, the petitioner himself brought to the notice of the assessing authority, the fact that he had not declared the purchases aforementioned in the return for December 2013. Inasmuch as the petitioner had himself brought the discrepancies to the notice of the assessing authority, I am of the view that, the assessing authority ought to have given the petitioner an opportunity for revising the returns accordingly so as to include the purchase turnover that was allegedly suppressed in the returns from December 2013. The assessing authority, however, proceeded to issue pre-assessment notices, and thereafter, confirm the assessment against the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition. 6. As regards W.P.(C).No.33522 of 2016, I find that, the partnership firm, which is the assesse in the said writ petition, comprised of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.24958 of 2015 and his wife. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.24958 of 2015, who realised the discrepancy with regard to the non-inclusion of the purchase turnover in December 2013, and subsequently brought forth the said purchase turnover as the opening stock of the business of the partnership firm, did not seek to include the said purchase turnover in the returns for the opening months after the commencement of business by the partnership firm. It is relevant to note in this connection that, by Ext.P1 notice dated 24.08.2016, the assessing authority had already initiated steps in connection with the completion of an assessment by requiring the petitioner firm to produce its books of account for verification. Although it is the case of the petitioner firm that it was only thereafter, and at the time of auditing the books of accounts of the firm, that it was noticed that the purchase turnover of gold bullion referred above was not included in the return filed by the partnership firm, I am of the view that, inasmu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
